Yes, it's the open source content management system (with a very large community and set of plug-ins) we decided to standardize on a variety of our public facing sites: dev.twitter.com, blog.twitter.com/company, business.twitter.com, etc...
OK so they chose Drupal. What's the big deal, it's a nice platform for developers to use. Not super user friendly, but Twitter is full of developers who can tweak it. Why is this news?
It will be interesting to start hearing "well Twitter uses Drupal" when marketing people are trying to make a point that Drupal will solve all their website problems when in reality it may be overkill for their needs.
I don't really understand why Twitter would use another solution, blogs are pretty simple things fundamentally, don't they want total control over it? I'm sure they have the resources.
There isn't always a need to reinvent the wheel, even if you have the resources to do so; in this case Twitter isn't trying to compete on the technical functionality of their blog - therefore it doesn't make business sense for them to over-invest resources into it - they are therefore effectively outsourcing it (the technology side, at least).
Not such a big 'whoa' considering they already use Drupal for their dev site, though I guess I care more about the dev site than their blog. But why use Drupal for just a blog?
Drupal has a decent caching layer, a lot of useful plugins, and is actively developed.
As someone who does a fair bit of Drupal dev, for this use case (high volume, low number of changes) I probably would have picked a static site generator, but that's just me...
They were recruiting Drupal people not so long ago and it mentioned that it was to work on a fairly heavily modified Drupal install, so if you have the workflow in place internally to use it in one situation it makes sense to re-use that workflow and investment for any suitable situation.
